This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and splitted by subregions (e.g. the Metrolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This proposal was closed as "move" a long time ago. Húsönd 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What if we placed the photographs beside the text, instead of below it? I think it would help the eye move more comfortably through the text. If it were alternated (at right, at left, at right, etc.) for each section, how do you all think that would work? By the way, the photographs are beautiful, Husond! Mr Which??? 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just belatedly seen your comment, your suggestion was the preferred choice. However, it would not work, we tried that, it was fine on some screens but not on others the option was the present layout or lose some of the images, or have a thumbnail gallery at the bottom of the page far from the relevant text. Having tried various layouts and consulted with various people on different screens, the present layout by consencus was deemed the favoured choice. Giano (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interested, I would love to know how to do that? One small point "3" should not link to the entrance facade, and nowhere should link to Bamkin!!!! LOL. Apart from that it is brilliant, please put it in the article - with clicky instructions!! Giano (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to detract from Victuallers' contribution, which is a wonderful idea, but simply to respond to Giano's request to know how it is done. See image map. There are free programs that will map out areas of the image and hyperlink them. The image map article has some useful links. Hopefully Victuallers will continue contributing this handy enhancement. --JustaHulk (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good! Its improved a bit ... I'm working on the piunts you mentioned. I know about "Bamkin" ... I'll get bthat to go nowhere ... eventually. Is it possibile to put the missing picture on wikipedia instead of the outside link ... may take 24 hors to get right ... Victuallers (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive, Victuallers! Fingers crossed it all comes together before Jan 5th. Risker (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, fantastic - very clever. I've changed one or two of the images in the article's version - we shall have to disguise Husond and send him back for one or two more images now! Giano (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thx guys. I think its finished. Tell me if there is a finesse you need help with. Is there a way I can find out about potential FA articles earlier...? I'd like to make sure I get credited for potential new contributions as I understand it might help me Victuallers (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They only become potential FAs half way through writing, when they look as though they are going to be a half decent page, if you like doing doing this type of work there is a similar plan at Prince's Palace of Monaco which could use your attention in a veru similar way, linking to images in the text etc. You have done a great job here. Helping with FAs though does not help you anywhere, it's jusyt a bit of fun. Giano (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we do something to stop "3" and "15" linking to the wrong images, can they just have text saying what they are - ubtil we have an image? I tired to do it myself but it all went horribly wrong in preview. Giano (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Extreme trivia here, but in case anyone is interested: I deleted the "official" from official guest house allocated to foreign heads of state because I can't imagine how it could be other than official. (Not that I mind: if I've overlooked something, please revert.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just a truly great article. The photos are stellar, the clicky map is great fun, the article is superbly done. Bravo to everyone who worked on this! It is content like this that makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. --JayHenry (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah I have to say I would like to see the clicky map illustrating all complicated architectural buildings and it is quite amusing to play with too. I'm going to teach myself how to do it Giano (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What a grand article. Made me smile to see something so excellently edifying on the main page. Beautiful photographs too. Well done to all concerned. One small thing--in the plan, I "read" the road as a pillared collonnade or something like that because of the huge dots--I guess they're supposed to represent the cats eyes/road studs/whatever but they just look odd! But apart from that, 10/10, gold stars all round, go to the top of the class.86.133.240.138 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! Whilst still on main page! Two problems ... I had to say "other view" for position 16 as I wasnt sure of the correct title. Also I think FAs should have pictures on Wikimedia commons and this one is not there. However thx and thx for the barnstar and the patience award. I did find a list of forthcoming FAs.... my next assistance is with Boshin War on the 12th. Victuallers (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures on Commons is purely a matter of choice. I've seen too many "mistakes" lately, where Commons has deleted images for weird reasons. As the Commons administrator structure has become divergent from En., and as its methods and policies have diverged, fewer and fewer people want to trust FA images solely to Commons. Having the images both places is fine, but having them moved to Commons gives quite a few people the heebie jeebies. I'd vote "no" to putting these excellent images there and not having them at .en, but it's fine if Commons wants copies. Kudos, of course, to all the photographers, writers, and Giano especially. Geogre (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the basic map picture itself? For some reason I can never upload to commons it always times out that is why I never do it. I seem to have a very odd connection. It does look good though doesn't it - this has to be the best page ever! Giano (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the six Portuguese palaces added to the hitherto short and useful See also section. Diluting that section with articles about other palaces is not useful, but instead likely to make readers miss the actually relevant articles linked in the section. For a listing of comparable palaces, I have instead added List of Baroque residences; I hope that's acceptable. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

For being a featured article, this article lacks huge chunks of information on the palace. I find that only a few lines talk about the 1934 fire and yet this fire is such a huge piece of the palace's history. There is no talk on how the restauration following the fire, it was chosen that the second floor on the palace was not to be rebuilt, merely stated that the second floor was "lost", but to this term we can say that entire wing of the palace was lost. There is also no talk on how the originial plans of the palace saw to build a much larger complex, with mirror of the current palace on the other side. I understand the importance of the architectural sections in the article, after all it is an article on a building, but the history section is saddening. This palace has tons more of history to offer than the sad couple of lines that it is given here, something one would not expect to find in a featured article. This problem must be addressed, lest the state of the article as a qualified featured article be taken away for this. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to take a stab at elaborating the content of this article. Obviously, it will require time, but its do-able. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The page was written deliberately to be a FA; it was also as part of a large and very harmonious collaboration which included a Portuguese editor. It had to meet the FA criteria of the time, which was to be an even balance page. It is a good that at long last a true expert on the palace has arrived and wishes to expand it. However, common good manners suggest that to describe the efforts of those obviously feeble minded editors as 'saddening' is rather rude. It did after all go through the FA process - so cannot be quite so bad as you suggest. I'm sure those original editors are looking forward to seeing your improvements and wish you well. ToujoursDejaVu (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

While I do not consider the historic contributions on this page as "saddening" (I found the original prose quite well written), I will not consider the contributions of the former editors as "feeble-minded". In fact, the article is well written insofar as it provides an interpretation of the architectural influences. I am endeavouring to expand the historical continuity and chronology, complying with other articles on the buildings and structures of Portugal. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zeorymer, your editing never ceases to impress. I find a lovely article here. If I may, I am copying it to my sand box and just tinkering with image placement and such. I will add a link in a bit. Thank you for all your edits, you're a credit to wiki's ability. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am transferring my revised version of this article to my colleague User:Cristiano Tomás, who, I know, will be able to complete this expansion per the quality standards established on this subject. Please direct questions, queries and collaborative efforts to that sandbox. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that no one has gone to my sandbox (User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox) and checked to look at Zeorymer's reinmprovement and ellaboration on the palace's article. I ask that you all do, because the current article is imcomplete and an incomplete article should not be featured. Let's all work together. Zeorymer's article is absolutely thorough and informative and I propose an immediate replacement of the current article for the one here: User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox. Thank you all very much, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your version is dull, verbose and badly written. It has no introduction and no conclusion. Where you have re-worked the text, it sounds as though it has been put through a babelfish translating machine. The info-box is unecessary and reduces the principal image of the palace to the significance of an ostentatious dolls' house. Attempt to put any of that in mainspace and I will instantly revert it. I suggest you confine yourself to a short paragraph concerning the fire. Giano (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having stated the above comments, you basically put back civility and consensus on Wikipedia. While I might agree that editing of the revised article may be required, the Queluz article as it stands does not merit feature class status. It seems more like a architectural tour of an estate that concentrates on the grounds, and neglects the history completely, going for passing reference as a means to an end. There is more detail in the new version from direct Portuguese archive sources, that would help the understanding of the history and development of this estate. Further, the use of the infobox is inline with many of the articles on large-scale architecture currently being employed on all Wikiproject Portugal sites, in attempt to create consistency for elaborated works (for example Palace of Belém and Padrão dos Descobrimentos). Further, one thing, as "dull, verbose and badly written" or "babelfish"-like, what the revised article does provide is a complete history (not just the note on the fire), with introduction and quick-reference section (infobox). "Conclusions" are not in an encyclopedia, those are WP:POV comments. Finally, a comment like "confine yourself" implies everything that the Wikipedia:Five pillars contradicts, especially the part about "being bold in your edits". I find it interesting that a "retired" editor espouses such comments. And, while I am an editor of the revised edition of this article, I did preface my message here with a reference to civility and consensus, suggesting that further editing may be required. Threatening a mainspace revert is completely unjustifiable. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Giano. If you want to have an elaborate history, feel free to create a subarticle, but what is currently in the linked sandbox is substandard and practically unreadable. You'd lose your reader right at the beginning of the History section (much of which is neither English, nor adequately referenced and sourced). You'd be destroying a perfectly good featured article. Don't do it. AndreasJN466 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

First, I must first state my protest to your (Giano) completely unhelpful and rude comments, but that is besides the point. While I agree that the article in my sandbox requires a bit of tweaking (give Zeorymer some slack, he painstakingly wrote, compiled, and translated the article), it is far more complete than the current article. The current article is, in fact, an article on the architecture of the building, and really states nothing on the history of the building. While architecture is quite important, the building is famous for the place it has had in Portuguese history and monarchy. The current article is absolutely not at all deserving of the honour that is featured status, and should we not be able to include a complete history (and not just a "paragraph concerning the fire"), I do find that we must reopen the discussion on whether this article deserves its status. I do hope that we can fix this article, because it would be a lovely thing to have a featured article on a portuguese palace, but we must not allow half-done articles to be marked with this large encyclopedia's mark of excellence. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"he painstakingly wrote, compiled, and translated the article" what complete rubbish you speak. For the most part the article is the exact wording that is aready here (most of it written by me - already in English) - into that have been interjected at random a few phrases in gobbledgook and a few pragraphs repositioned and interspersed to make it look like a re-write. It is not; it's needless tampering. Your extended version is dull and laborious to read and would never acheive FA status - in fact it would fail miserably. Please do add anything you feel is missing, but not in such a way that the prose and interest value is destroyed. Also, bear in mind that the Kings and Queens of Portugal already have pages of their own, as do Portugal's momentous events. I could not reach the end of your monotonous prose because if I saw one more paragraph begining "In 17??" I would have hung myself. Remember: In 1492, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue. Finally, I have no interest in this remaining a FA so please don't try that old chesnut of a threat on me. I will not watch a perfectly good page dragged down to be a boring, badly written collection of disjointed facts - with no clear ending or begining. That is the position. Giano (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is the level of "harmonious" consensus used to complete the first FA status, I am surprised it ever happened. As for your comments against what I did or did not do, first, you should not make hostile interjections. Second, and to clarify: the content in the proposed history section is totally new to that page, among other content added, with modifications occurring throughout from original third-party sources. A "Show changes" comparison of Cristiano's sandbox with the original "Queluz" article can clearly show this differences. The "architecture" section may retain many of the original content from the current article, which was expected, since there were no large revisions to that section. Hence, your reference to "exact wording...most of it written [by you]" is true. But, please, do not diminish "good faith" editing. There is nothing in the editing that is "needless tampering" since people have a right within the Wikipedia community to edit. If "gobbledygook" exists, then editing is required. I do not dispute that. All pages on Wikipedia are not immutable. FA status does not mean that they can not be changed, I have seen content continuously edited on other FA status Wikipedia pages. What your comments suggest is a WP:Harrassment of "good faith" edits (or better yet, they presuppose them), further implying your lack of understanding in regards to the WP:Ownership of articles policy. I suggest the best way to mitigate any conflict is to be collaborative. One final point, it is obvious that you are aficionado of well-written prose (undisputed), yet you refer to the revision as a "badly written collection of disjointed facts", with "no clear ending or beginning". I need to clarify this one final point: the style is supposed to be Encyclopedic, which does not mean its tone should follow that of a armchair reference. While it will have an introduction and provide content/facts, it does not necessarily require a "ending". A reference to Queluz becoming designated as a national monument is not an ending (since other events occurred following its designation). In fact, Wikipedia implies that there should never have an ending. It would be more productive that, instead of off-hand swipes, we become involved in upgrading the content together. The page is, as I said, not immutable, and there will be edits. We should avoid an WP:Edit War on this subject. ruben jcZEORYMER (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)